Olli Pitkänen is right now defending his Ph.D “Legal Challanges to Future Information Businesses” here in T3. His has used scenarios to predict what kind of legal issues will be important in forthcoming “U-world”. The outcome is somewhat “D’oh” i.e. data protection, contract law and IPRs.
- In traditional contract law consent is the the key consept – how can a device give consent or how can the user find out what he/she is accepting if the UI is very limited
- IPRs: The onion model
- Privacy: Publishing photos is technically criminal because of the data protection laws (Olli used my photos from Mikko’s karonkka as an example!)
Prof. Olli Martikainen starts by explaining the history of (innovation) economics. The basics of new growth economics and Bell’s results about information society are explained as well as sociological view on risk and network society and Druckers theories on how to use information.
Prof Mähönen starts by stressing the importance of finding the relevant areas of law. Then he asks Olli to write down to board what he means by factors and attributes because those terms define his work to large extent.
The factors are technology and societal. The attributes for technology are mobility, open-closed, ASP – P2P and DRM. Societal attributes are information scarcity, value networks, economic development and change in society.
Mähönen agrees with Olli that “lainoppi” (docmatic theory of law) is not very useful for predicting future. He then puts Olli to agree that his methodology is eclectic (?) and describes why eclectic methodogies are theoretically impossible to critizise because they are always personal and unique. He then askes what he should demand from Olli.
Olli responce that general norms of science apply – never the less.
Mähönen makes a surpise move and pulls out a stack of slides. The slides describe regulation theory and Mähönen asks why Olli didn’t make a scenario about legal changes. Olli replies that it would have made the model too difficult and also that there won’t be too radical changes anyway in the given 10 years time frame. Mähönen lectures more about regulation theory and mentinones public choice theory as an useful tool for analysing the changes in IPRs.
Martikainen attacts. He first declares the work as eclectic. He then warns that eclectic works are dangerous, there’s a risk that “jää pettää alta”. He states that Olli’s chosen mixture of methodologies is not good and is missing three key methdologies from the area. Outch.
Martikainen is on the roll. He moves to critizise how the work lacks totally the market dynamics analysis (example: SIM-card does not bring any added value to PDA-like features to in mobile phone. It is still required and forms a control point for operators.)
Mähönen argues that the biggest problem from legal perspective is the lack of analysis on political power and motivating factors. Not many questions to Olli, he seems a bit gloomy.
Mähönen goes to definations. He does not like Olli’s legal glossary. He thinks that Olli has not taken account the diversity of legal systems e.g. how Islamic law affacts the global privacy legislation.
Few jokes – mode lightens up.
Martikainen lectures about ETSI and how patents are keeping out the competitors – Since most of the original GSM-patents are going get old during the next 10 years something will happen. Olli agrees but defends his work by explaining that market realities were not very visible in scenarios.
Mähönen takes the ball and explains that Olli is technically right but that the lack of dynamic nature in scenarios helps him out. Mähönen agrees that the hard core of legal science looks backwards and asks if Olli is using “Foundation”-like psyco-history
Mähönen uses post-9/11 changes as an example of radical and fast changes that is already taking place and that will cause a fundametal change during the time period.
Olli argues that the general trend has been pro-privacy. In his mind the current pro-”security” trend is just temporary and in the end the human rights will win. He admits that he may be wrong.
Last joke from Martikainen: in page 24 Olli refers to Potter – Harry Potter?